Talk:All Saints' Church, Northampton

New section
Article written in connection with the Northampton article. Simon Webb 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The section regarding the departure of Fr David McConkey should contain only factual information only. If individuals are 'ashamed', that is a matter of conjecture and subjective, not necessarily factual and frankly of no interest. The inclusion of the whole article isn't constructive, it tarnishes both the church and the named individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.97.200 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The departure of David McConkey is factual and was publised in both local media and national. It is a part of the Church's recent history and is therefore of importance. 213.233.132.172 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Revd. David McConkey is quoted describing the individuals as ashamed. As this is widely publicised, it is correct to include on this wikipedia page. 89.100.169.21 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This individual has not resigned by means of a formal deed of resignation, maybe you would like to update the page with the facts, as you like to talk about facts. But, yes you are absolutely right let’s publish the ‘facts’ irrespective if it offends / hurts individuals or groups of people not in any way involved in the situation you find yourself in. So desperate you and your ‘supporters’ are for revenge, you don’t give a care for the consequences that may result, remind me here about Christian values of forgiving your enemy and turning the other cheek, do they not apply to you? So, enjoy what you think is a victory, for it serves neither God’s purpose or advancement of God’s church on Earth and don't forget to keep checking the website should just in-case others decide to amend it for their own purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.97.200 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please cite your sources and stop bringing personal agendas into this. I do not know you, nor do I know the individual. It is in my interest that this article is accurate. The sources state that Revd. David resigned and state his reasons why. If you can find sources which say otherwise, then please cite them. 213.233.147.116 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the, 19th February 2016 "He (David McConkey) has not resigned by means of a formal deed of resignation.. he is still priest in charge" (sic). Therefore this article is inaccurate. Therefore any reference to a resignation is wholly inaccurate (at present). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.153.206 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid there is no citation as requested above. Simply writing "Diocese of Peterborough" is not a citation. Please cite your sources! Thank you. Balkwillh (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Departure of Fr David McConkey
I removed this. It's simply not significant enough to warrant a mention in an encylopedia article. No doubt similar such events occur repeatedly over the course of hundreds of years in many churches. Detailing the most recent such event because we have internet sources nowadays gives undue weight to what is a very minor occurence when viewed in the context of the church and its history. If David McConkey was sufficently notable to have a dedicated Wikipedia artilce then it might merit a mention there, but not in this article.--Pontificalibus 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that my removal of this has been reverted with the edit summaries stating that the content is important and relevant. I think WP:PROPORTION applies to this - the resignation of a priest due to some apparent disagreement with some of the congregation four years ago is such a minor aspect of the entirety of the church's history that it doesn't warrant a mention in this article. 86.143.28.144 would you please set out below why you think this episode warrants a mention in an encyclopedia? There are no sources demonstrating the enduring significance or lasting impact of this resignation.Pontificalibus 08:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Pontificalibus. I happen to know that the only printed source on this (a report from a local paper) is innaccurate. However as it is the only source it cannot be contradicted. I'm not sure more than a few people think this matters now or if they do why they think so. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Icons
The icons mentioned here are pictures. I am not sure if they are painted or printed. If they are printed they are copies of paintings. I would not have thought that the word "written" is appropriate here. Is "written " a technical term in the creation or painting of icons? If not I propose that "painted" be substituted. I have a connection with this church so I don't want to change it if it is controversial.Spinney Hill (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From this article it seems the expression has been in common usage but also that it's reasonable not to use it, and that "painted" would be more correct and less confusing, so I have changed it.--Pontificalibus 06:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)